BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1214
Page A
Date of Hearing: May 15, 2013
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Mike Gatto, Chair
AB 1214 (Muratsuchi) - As Amended: May 6, 2013
Policy Committee: Education
Vote:5-0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill requires regional occupational center programs
(ROC/Ps) established by a joint powers authority (JPA) to
receive an annual appropriation from the General Fund (GF) for
purposes of providing career technical education services (CTE).
Specifically, this bill:
Requires the funds to be appropriated directly to the ROC/Ps
based on a formula agreed upon by school districts participating
in the JPA.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)This bill requires ROC/P JPAs to receive an annual GF
appropriation. According to the State Department of Education
(SDE), there were 32 JPAs in the 2007-08 fiscal year (FY)
(latest data available) with a total average daily attendance
of 71.7 million, which generated a total of $255.3 million in
ROC/P funding.<1> Under this bill, school districts
participating in ROC/P JPAs would receive current ROC/P
funding in addition to the GF appropriation required in this
measure.
2)As part of the February 2009 budget package, SB 4 X3
(Ducheny), Chapter 12, Statutes of 2009, provided local
education agencies (LEAs) with policy and fiscal flexibility
for all ROC/P programs funded in the budget act, including
---------------------------
<1>Current ROC/P data is no longer collected due to categorical
flexibility. The numbers referenced may have decreased
depending on whether or not the district still participates in
the JPA and at what service level.
AB 1214
Page B
those operated by JPAs. This bill is contrary to these
provisions because school districts participating in the ROC/P
JPA will not have direct access to ROC/P funding to use in a
flexibile manner.
COMMENTS
1)Background . ROC/Ps provide high school students 16 years of
age and older, and also adult students, with valuable CTE
services so students can: (a) enter the workforce with skills
and competencies to be successful; (b) pursue advanced
training in higher educational institutions; and/or (c)
upgrade existing skills and knowledge. There are 32 ROC/Ps
operated by a JPA.
ROC/Ps fall under one of three distinct organizational
structures: (a) school districts participating in a county
office of education (COE)-operated ROC/P; (b) school districts
participating under a JPA; or (c) a single school district.
SB 4 X3 (part of the February budget process), provided local
education agencies (LEAs) with unprecedented fiscal and policy
flexibility related to over 40 categorical programs between
the 2008-09 FY to the 2012-13 FY. Specifically, any LEA that
received funding for specified categorical programs, including
ROC/Ps, in the 2008-09 FY is authorized to use this funding
for any other educational purpose until the 2012-13 FY. The
LEA may choose to continue operating the categorical program
that it received funding for or redirect it for any other
educational purpose it deems appropriate. SB 70 (Committee on
Budget and Fiscal Review), Chapter 7, Statutes of 2011,
extended this flexibility until the 2014-15 FY.
2)Purpose . According to the author, this bill was inspired by
SoCAL ROC, established in 1967 and located in the author's
district. This ROC/P is administered by a JPA consisting of
six school districts in Los Angeles County. These six
districts are: El Segundo Unified School District, Inglewood
Unified School District, Manhattan Beach Unified School
District, Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District,
Redondo Beach Unified School District, and Torrance Unified
School District. The program serves high school and adult
students.
This bill requires all ROC/P JPAs to receive its funding
directly from the state GF.
AB 1214
Page C
The author argues this bill is necessary to ensure SoCAL ROC
and other ROC/P JPAs will continue to operate regardless of
whether the state enacts a new K-12 funding formula, as
proposed by the governor.
3)SB 1197 (Alquist), Chapter 519, Statutes of 2008 , requires,
commencing with the 2009-10 FY, ROC/P JPAs (including SoCAL
ROC) to receive funding directly from a COE in which it is
located, instead of receiving funds from each of the school
districts participating in the JPA.
Prior to the enactment of Chapter 519, ROC/P JPAs received
their funding from school districts participating in the JPA.
The funding is based on their average daily attendance (ADA)
(i.e., unit that generates the amount of revenue limit
funding).
As referenced above, SB 4 X3 (enacted in February 2009)
established policy and fiscal flexibility for all ROC/P
programs funded in the budget act, including those operated by
JPAs (i.e., SoCAL ROC). Presumably, the statutory flexibility
allows school districts who receive ROC/P funding to do one of
two things: (a) continue operating their programs or (b)
redirect a portion or all funding for another education
purpose during the time period established in statute.
Currently, school districts participating in ROC/Ps can choose
whether or not to continue participating in this program,
depending on the terms of their JPA. Under this bill, all
ROC/P JPAs would receive a GF appropriation directly to
operate its program. It is unclear if the COE that receives
school district funding to participate in the program would
continue to receive this funding given there would be a GF
appropriation to operate the program.
4)Implementation issues . As reference above, all ROC/Ps are
part of the categorical flexibility that is in effect until
the 2014-15 FY, which means school district continue to
receive funding for this program until that time.
Each ROC/P JPA consists of school districts that contribute
funding to this program. This bill appropriates GF for the
operation of these programs. Is the GF appropriation meant to
replace the funding the districts currently contribute to the
AB 1214
Page D
operation the ROC/P JPA or is it meant to be in addition to
it? If the appropriation is meant to replace the funding,
then language should be added to the bill that offsets all
school district apportionments for ROC/P JPAs; otherwise these
districts will receive additional funding beyond other ROC/Ps,
which leaves less funding for other K-14 programs/purposes.
The author may wish to add offsetting funding language to this
bill.
5)This bill conflicts with the Governor's proposed Local Control
Funding Formula (LCFF) . The LCFF proposes to consolidate the
majority of the state's categorical programs, including those
under categorical flexibility, within the existing revenue
limit (general purpose funding) structure to establish a new
K-12 student formula phased in over seven years. The
governor's proposed budget provides $1.6 billion GF/98 in FY
2013-14 to begin increasing district rates to a target base
rate and provides supplemental funding for English learner
pupils, low income pupils, and foster youth.
The author argues this bill is necessary in order to ensure
ROC/P JPAs continue to operate should the LCFF take effect.
This bill, however, does not include language to make its
enactment contingent on implementation of this formula. The
author may wish to address this issue.
6)Related legislation .
a) AB 88 (Buchanan), pending in the Assembly Education
Committee, implements the LCFF, which establishes a new
K-12 funding formula and eliminates all of the flexed
categorical programs.
b) SB 69 (Liu), pending in the Senate Appropriations
Committee, establishes a LCFF by modifying the governor's
proposal.
Analysis Prepared by : Kimberly Rodriguez / APPR. / (916)
319-2081